Ondra article in NYT

Pierre Proulx wrote:

Not sure if you are:

a) trolling
b) clueless 
c) have a knowledge of the climbing world that is limited to having watched  Valley Uprising, The dawn wall and Free solo

Well, that depends how you want to define "best". But considering Lynn Hill among the best is defensible position. She broke a lot of ground in her time, not just for women but all climbers. Honnold's solo has not parallel, so if you consider boldness that's again a defensible position. I guess Ondra's Dawn Wall repeat weaken's Tommy claim. But then again, he didn't have to spend 7 years scouting for a route no one thought even existed, so if you include that point you may argue Caldwell broke more ground than Ondra on some fronts.

I wouldn't be so sure of myself if I were you.

Franck Vee wrote:

Well, that depends how you want to define "best". But considering Lynn Hill among the best is defensible position. She broke a lot of ground in her time, not just for women but all climbers. Honnold's solo has not parallel, so if you consider boldness that's again a defensible position. I guess Ondra's Dawn Wall repeat weaken's Tommy claim. But then again, he didn't have to spend 7 years scouting for a route no one thought even existed, so if you include that point you may argue Caldwell broke more ground than Ondra on some fronts.

I wouldn't be so sure of myself if I were you.

by your definition anyone who has push the boundary at some point would be a "better" climber. Should we consider Harding since he was the first to climb the dawn wall? Lynn Hill was at one point in contention for the wolrd best climber, not doubt about it, but today? 

No one denies Honnold is the best free soloist in the world, but he is not the best climber. Even Honnold has stated several times that he cannot climb close to the level Ondra can.  Of the three I would support Tommy's case the most, because he is amongst the world best big wall climbers, no doubt about it.  This being said, Ondra is the world best sport climber and on the Dawn wall he has shown that he can transition his sport climbing skills to trad/big wall.  

so it comes down to definition. On pure grade alone, Ondra sits on top and it's not even close. 

Pierre Proulx wrote:

by your definition anyone who has push the boundary at some point would be a "better" climber. Should we consider Harding since he was the first to climb the dawn wall? Lynn Hill was at one point in contention for the wolrd best climber, not doubt about it, but today? 

No one denies Honnold is the best free soloist in the world, but he is not the best climber. Even Honnold has stated several times that he cannot climb close to the level Ondra can.  Of the three I would support Tommy's case the most, because he is amongst the world best big wall climbers, no doubt about it.  This being said, Ondra is the world best sport climber and on the Dawn wall he has shown that he can transition his sport climbing skills to trad/big wall.  

so it comes down to definition. On pure grade alone, Ondra sits on top and it's not even close. 

I am not putting down a definition - I'm just giving example as to how one could put out a defensible argument to say that, say, Lynn Hill has a decent claim to being "the best" (or Honnold or Caldwell or a handfull of others).

I wouldn't have replied actually, I was mostly ticked by the fact that your response to the previous intervention was dismissive, contemptuous, needlessly so in my opinion.

Franck Vee wrote:

You miss the point, and anyways the point you raise is mostly false.

Michels Phelps won a bunch of gold medals in a bunch of different distances, but yeah, you're right, he wasn't the best swimmer at those distances. Carl Lewis dominating the olympics and set multiple world records, but not, for sure, not close to be the best of his games. What you say is true for stuff like hockey, basketball & some others. Usain Bolt rocked his distances & relays too, but hey, it's not like he performed in anyways outside the weak olympic bubble. 

If you going to troll your argument, please at least try for real, I'm kind of insulted.

At any rate, "The best" in that case is about perception. From a global perspective, no one really knows much about professional climbing. IFSC has 169k subscribers on youtube. The olympics will be, from a global perspective, the first time competitive climbing is even a thing and whoever wins that will be considered the best climber, from that moment. It will remain so (subconciously) for most people until they remember again competitive climbing is a thing 4 years laters, in much the same way I keep remembering/forgetting that some people wear super long ice skates & chase each others on ice rings while trying to make each others fall without it looking to voluntary. Few of these people care about the fact that speed climbing is pretty much unrelated to bouldering, barely comparable to lead climbing and that all of that is only just indoor artificial climbing anyways. If (and I'm not pretending I know Ondra's mind on this, thought in interviews he does seem to hint at being rather proud of where he comes from) Ondra's doing this partly related to national pride, I'm sure given of choice as to be Tradiban's perception of the best, or the rest of the world, the rest of the world will triumph. Sorry if that hurts your ego....

Or he may just do it because he knows all the name recognition & sponsor money that will come out of this & following this will ensure that whatever greater and more interesting project he has in mind for real climbing will be much, much easier to get off the ground after he crushes it, even though he dislikes the format and may even agree that there's little correlation between whoever wins the climbing olympics and who's the best climber at this time. Whatever that title actually means - even setting aside the olympic saga, there's a number of different ways one could define best climber, many of which may point to Ondra but a lot of which wouldn't....

Real climbers don't care who the "best" climber is because "best" is just some bullshit the Olympics is selling you in order to keep their machine going.

Scott Biegert wrote:

But to be honest I really just don't like listening to Ondra talk so I find myself finding so much good in other climbers and pinpoint my one dislike of him. 

So...

D) he's not 'murican

Scott Biegert wrote: I would say Tommy Caldwell,  Alex Honnold and Lynn Hill are all better climbers. This may be subjective but I believe they are all around better climbers.

You’re right. It’s inconceivable the best climber isn’t American. 

Great article, does a really good job at explaining Ondra’s story to a general audience. Slightly disappointed to hear he’s using acupuncture, he usually takes such a rational approach to training. No mention of a sports psychologist in ‘team Ondra’, he’s imposing a huge amount of pressure on himself. 

duncan... wrote:

You’re right. It’s inconceivable the best climber isn’t American. 

Great article, does a really good job at explaining Ondra’s story to a general audience. Slightly disappointed to hear he’s using acupuncture, he usually takes such a rational approach to training. No mention of a sports psychologist in ‘team Ondra’, he’s imposing a huge amount of pressure on himself. 

Please explain to us why youre disappointed that one of the greatest athletes in our sport utilizes traditional medicine that has been around for thousands of years. Im sure everyone here is just dying to hear your medical opinion

Ty Gilroy wrote: Please explain to us why youre disappointed that one of the greatest athletes in our sport utilizes traditional medicine that has been around for thousands of years. Im sure everyone here is just dying to hear your medical opinion

Blood-letting and leeches were used for thousands of years. Doesn’t make them any good. 

Acupuncture works compared to doing nothing but ‘real’ acupuncture is not better than a convincing sham or placebo treatment e.g. this systematic review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19250001/   The effects of acupuncture seem to be due to the theatre. 

Scott Biegert wrote:

Not so much his accent but his Idiolect. 

How dare his Engrish not be perfect? Stupid foreigners having the audacity to be born abroad and raised in a different language. Fuckers can't even use a proper American turn of phrase.

How's you Czech these days Scott?

duncan... wrote:

Blood-letting and leeches were used for thousands of years. Doesn’t make them any good. 

Acupuncture works compared to doing nothing but ‘real’ acupuncture is not better than a convincing sham or placebo treatment e.g. this systematic review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19250001/   The effects of acupuncture seem to be due to the theatre. 

Wow. Baseless, fact less drivel. Thanks for your research Dr. Duncan

Lynn Hill was the best of her time, arguably, and broke a lot of ground, but there are a number of women climbers out there today that clearly are stronger than she ever was. Babsi Zangrel comes to mind as just one example, specifically in terms of doing El Cap free, and certainly in the realm of bouldering and sport. By no reasonable metric could she be considered the best climber climbing right now.

Tommy Caldwell is awesome and I love him, but he's not the best climber in the world, by almost any measure. He's put a huge mark on El Cap because it's his home crag, but again, there are Euros that are clearly playing the game at at least as high a level and are also not nearly as specialized as he is. Ondra's rapid repeat of the Dawn Wall comes to mind, and I'd bet the third ascent of the Dawn Wall will come in a year or two.

Unlike Hill and Caldwell, Honnold actually could be considered the best climber in the world if you weight boldness strongly. He's nearly otherworldly in his ability to shut out fear, but for pure athleticism he himself would acknowledge that he's nothing special. Ondra onsights his project grade for sport climbing.

Ty Gilroy wrote:

Wow. Baseless, fact less drivel. Thanks for your research Dr. Duncan

Hard to call someone's statement "baseless, fact less drivel" when they provided a scientific paper to back up their claim. You can debate their evidence, but "baseless" is missing the mark pretty badly.

Dylan Colon wrote: Lynn Hill was the best of her time, arguably, and broke a lot of ground, but there are a number of women climbers out there today that clearly are stronger than she ever was. Babsi Zangrel comes to mind as just one example, specifically in terms of doing El Cap free, and certainly in the realm of bouldering and sport. By no reasonable metric could she be considered the best climber climbing right now.

Tommy Caldwell is awesome and I love him, but he's not the best climber in the world, by almost any measure. He's put a huge mark on El Cap because it's his home crag, but again, there are Euros that are clearly playing the game at at least as high a level and are also not nearly as specialized as he is. Ondra's rapid repeat of the Dawn Wall comes to mind, and I'd bet the third ascent of the Dawn Wall will come in a year or two.

Unlike Hill and Caldwell, Honnold actually could be considered the best climber in the world if you weight boldness strongly. He's nearly otherworldly in his ability to shut out fear, but for pure athleticism he himself would acknowledge that he's nothing special. Ondra onsights his project grade for sport climbing.

By that rational, the best in pretty much any sport is whoever was the best of the current (or at most last ) decade. I think it's taking a dim view of performance in sports.

I would bet that even the top 5 or 10 players in, say, the NHL from the 70s/80s would at most be average/average good players today. I'm pretty sure a similar observation could be made in most sports. We just have a lot of factors leading into, from scientifique research on a bunch of topics that contributed technical improvements, better training methods, to activity-specific progression, to easier access to information in general, to better gear, etc.

SInce my above claim is weak on specific and debatable, let's look at easily quantifiable activities, one where technic alone is important but where a lot of complexity has been taken away: running.

Men marathon world record breaks per year:

Same for women (same page):

You could look at the 4 minute mile, too. Which is probably even more enlightening when you know the story behind (a good read in HBR here). Today you would probably have trouble winning the NCAA mile championship if you can't run a 4 minute mile. Yet Bannister accomplished a time most thought physically impossible for humans and changed the way we thought about running the mile forever. But since some NCAA kid can run faster than a 4 minute mile, he's a greater athlete than Bannister, who broke down the barrier that allowed the 1000s who later managed to do the same?

Point being: great sport accomplishment aren't just a matter of raw physical strength, faster reflexes, higher V02max or lactate treshold or whatever. Knowing what's possible helps make things possible, and those who invested they talent in showing us where the limits are can't be compared to today's great just on raw physical attributes.

EDIT: I thought it was interesting to compare men & women's marathon time, because forever women were pretty much not allowed to run the marathon. The drop in time from the 60s when they could start to run it is impressive. What explains this? Certainly not raw improvement in physical abilities. There's no reason why a certain gender would evolve mutant ability to run marathons while the other half of humanity stagnates/progresses slowly. Part of it was just having women showing others what they could do, just as Bannister showed people what running the mile could look like, and who whoever first broke 2:30 on the marathon for men did, or 2:20 etc.

Franck Vee wrote:

By that rational, the best in pretty much any sport is whoever was the best of the current (or at most last ) decade. I think it's taking a dim view of performance in sports.

I would bet that even the top 5 or 10 players in, say, the NHL from the 70s/80s would at most be average/average good players today. I'm pretty sure a similar observation could be made in most sports. We just have a lot of factors leading into, from scientifique research on a bunch of topics that contributed technical improvements, better training methods, to activity-specific progression, to easier access to information in general, to better gear, etc.

SInce my above claim is weak on specific and debatable, let's look at easily quantifiable activities, one where technic alone is important but where a lot of complexity has been taken away: running.

Men marathon world record breaks per year:

Same for women (same page):

You could look at the 4 minute mile, too. Which is probably even more enlightening when you know the story behind (a good read in HBR here). Today you would probably have trouble winning the NCAA mile championship if you can't run a 4 minute mile. Yet Bannister accomplished a time most thought physically impossible for humans and changed the way we thought about running the mile forever. But since some NCAA kid can run faster than a 4 minute mile, he's a greater athlete than Bannister, who broke down the barrier that allowed the 1000s who later managed to do the same?

Point being: great sport accomplishment aren't just a matter of raw physical strength, faster reflexes, higher V02max or lactate treshold or whatever. Knowing what's possible helps make things possible, and those who invested they talent in showing us where the limits are can't be compared to today's great just on raw physical attributes.

EDIT: I thought it was interesting to compare men & women's marathon time, because forever women were pretty much not allowed to run the marathon. The drop in time from the 60s when they could start to run it is impressive. What explains this? Certainly not raw improvement in physical abilities. There's no reason why a certain gender would evolve mutant ability to run marathons while the other half of humanity stagnates/progresses slowly. Part of it was just having women showing others what they could do, just as Bannister showed people what running the mile could look like, and who whoever first broke 2:30 on the marathon for men did, or 2:20 etc.

Pretty interesting Ted talk arguing the opposite point here. He even brings up the mile time as an example. 

Travis S wrote:

Pretty interesting Ted talk arguing the opposite point here. He even brings up the mile time as an example. 

Good points in there indeed. Cycling & swimming are pretty good examples of sports where technologies had HUGE impacts. Climbing as well - the Everest of Edmund Hillary isn't the Everest that some guy paid 150 000$ to be guided on in 2019. Running shoes are better as well now.

The initial argument was not so much, at any rate, about WHY or HOW we got better - it was initially that comparing today's accomplishment with those of the past isn't straightforward. If anything, his arguments are better than mine previous one to drive that point home.

Scott Biegert wrote:

a) I am not intentionally trolling 

b) I may be clueless but again I wouldn't know
c) I have only seen Valley Uprising and The Dawn Wall. So my knowledge will be expanded more once I take part in the viewing of Free Solo.

I stated my opinion is subjective and I think style and finesse play a big part in climbing. But to be honest I really just don't like listening to Ondra talk so I find myself finding so much good in other climbers and pinpoint my one dislike of him.

Don't like Ondra talk, find three Americans to be better climbers than him because of it.

 Maybe try listening to him in one of the four other languages he is fluent in?

Franck Vee wrote:

Good points in there indeed. Cycling & swimming are pretty good examples of sports where technologies had HUGE impacts. Climbing as well - the Everest of Edmund Hillary isn't the Everest that some guy paid 150 000$ to be guided on in 2019. Running shoes are better as well now.

The initial argument was not so much, at any rate, about WHY or HOW we got better - it was initially that comparing today's accomplishment with those of the past isn't straightforward. If anything, his arguments are better than mine previous one to drive that point home.

Just realized that I misread your original post, my bad. I think the cycling example is a particularly interesting comparison. 

Dylan Colon wrote:

Hard to call someone's statement "baseless, fact less drivel" when they provided a scientific paper to back up their claim. You can debate their evidence, but "baseless" is missing the mark pretty badly.

Did you even read the link to the “scientific paper” that was posted?

Franck Vee wrote:

Good points in there indeed. Cycling & swimming are pretty good examples of sports where technologies had HUGE impacts. Climbing as well - the Everest of Edmund Hillary isn't the Everest that some guy paid 150 000$ to be guided on in 2019. Running shoes are better as well now.

I disagree here that technology has had an impact on climbing the same way it has on cycling, swimming, skiing, etc. First off, Everest is not a great example for ANYTHING climbing related. The only material technology that directly improves one's rock climbing is shoes. The major reasons for improvements in climbing are more abstract: conceptual shifts away from it being an outdoor recreation and toward it being a performance-based sport, shifts in style and ethics, and the consolidation and increase of various training approaches over the last ten years or so.

So, yeah, the comparison to running might be the closest.

Pnelson wrote:

I disagree here that technology has had an impact on climbing the same way it has on cycling, swimming, skiing, etc. First off, Everest is not a great example for ANYTHING climbing related. The only material technology that directly improves one's rock climbing is shoes. The major reasons for improvements in climbing are more abstract: conceptual shifts away from it being an outdoor recreation and toward it being a performance-based sport, shifts in style and ethics, and the consolidation and increase of various training approaches over the last ten years or so.

So, yeah, the comparison to running might be the closest.

Replace Everest with any other alpinism endeavour if you wish (I agree its not the best mountain). Unless you want to consider alpinism not really climbing but a different category or distance cousin, which may be a fair point.

For climbing alone, setting alpinism aside, even then - trad gear improved by leaps and bounds. It's hard to imagine most 5.14 gear route on nuts alone or on Lowe-style "cams".  I would also be inclined to not underestimate how much shoe technologie has improved climbing, technically. I guess it depends on when one fixes the beginning of that evolution. But a good exercise would be to try to redpoint a max grade with, say, nothing more technical than approach shoe. I'm sure that would be bring mine a number of letters grades lower.... Seems not that far off, as a contribution, as the swimsuit to simming.

EDIT: as to another example for how technologies has tilted the playing field and made it easier to push the sport - drills & bolts. To me that is an example somewhat similar to changing the track's surface from loose gravel/ashes to today's tracks, c.f. the 4 mile video Travis posted earlier. Sport climbing wouldn't be what it is without bodylenght pros....